CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  AND  BOOKSTACKS 

The  person  borrowing  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  renewal  or  return  before 

the  Latest  Date  stamped  below.  You  may 
be  charged  a minimum  fee  of  $75.00  for 
each  non-returned  or  lost  item. 

Theft,  mutilation,  or  defacement  of  library  materials  can  be 
causes  for  student  disciplinary  action.  All  materials  owned  by 
the  University  of  Illinois  Library  are  the  property  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  and  are  protected  by  Article  16B  of  llllnoit  Criminal 
Law  and  Procedure. 


TO  RENEW,  CALL  (217)  333-8400. 
University  of  Illinois  Library  at  Urbana-Champaign 


DEC  2 0 2001 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date 
below  previous  due  date.  L162 


Page  four 


lev 


a 


I 


fo 

d 

DANIEL  B.  LUTEN 

DESIGNING  AND  CONSULTING  ENGINEER 
INDIANAPOLIS 

Born  at  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  in  1869.  Was  graduated  from 
University  of  Michigan  in  1 894  with  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Science 
in  Civil  Engineering.  Was  then  appointed  Instructor  in  Civil  Engi- 
neering at  University  of  Michigan,  assistant  to  Prof.  Charles  E.  Greene, 
one  of  the  foremost  authorities  on  arch  analysis  and  author  of  Greene’s 
Graphic  Method  of  Truss  and  Arch  Analysis.  Resigned  this  position 
after  one  year  to  become  Instructor  in  Civil  Engineering  at  Purdue 
University,  Eafayette,  Indiana,  in  full  charge  of  instruction  in  arch 
design,  stereotomy,  and  theory  of  hydraulics.  Conducted  numerous 
experiments  on  arches  and  reinforced  concrete  and  published  numer- 
ous articles  on  these  researches  in  Engineering  News,  Engineering 
Record,  and  other  technical  journals. 

Resigned  from  the  Faculty  of  Purdue  University  in  1900  to  prac- 
tice engineering  and  after  one  year  in  general  practice,  entered  actively 
on  the  design  of  reinforced  concrete  bridges.  For  the  past  ten  years 
has  followed  this  specialty  exclusively,  and  in  that  time  has  supervised 
the  design  and  erection  of  over  four  thousand  reinforced  concrete  arches 
of  which  the  accompanying  pages  show  some  one  hundred  examples. 

Has  an  organized  staff  of  eleven  assistant  engineers  and  twenty- 
four  associate  engineers  located  in  every  part  of  the  United  States. 

Member  of  the  Western  Society  of  Engineers,  Member  of  the 
American  Society  of  Engineering  Contractors,  and  President  of  the 
Indiana  Engineering  Society. 


Page  five 


49877 


BRIDGE  816,  C.  & L.  M.  RY.,  LIMA,  OHIO 
Twin  spans  of  60  feet  each 

For  the  Ohio  Electric  Railway  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  1907 


BRIDGE  816,  C.  & L.  M.  RY.,  LIMA,  OHIO 
Same  as  above 

Showing  details  of  piers  and  copings 

Page  six 


CARTERSBURG  BRIDGE,  CARTERSBURG,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  90  feet  each 

For  the  Indianapolis  & Western  Railway  Company,  Indianapolis,  1906 


LINN  GROVE  BRIDGE,  LINN  GROVE,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  79  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Adams  County,  Decatur,  Indiana,  1907 


Page  seven 


SAN  LUISITO  BRIDGE,  MONTERREY,  MEXICO 
Twin  spans  of  74  feet  each 

For  Slices,  de  Hernandez  Hnos.,  Monterrey,  Mexico,  1908 


SAN  LUISITO  BRIDGE.  MONTERREY,  MEXICO 
Same  as  above 

Showing  interior  of  market  house  superstructure,  entirely  of  reinforced  concrete  with 
passageway  lined  with  market  booths  on  each  side 


Page  eight 


sax  LUisrro  bridge,  moxterrey,  Mexico 

See  opposite  page 

Showing  bridge  in  flood  of  August,  1909,  which  destroyed  a large  part  of  the  City  of  Monterrey 
with  loss  of  3,000  lives.  See  Engineering  Xews,  September  23,  1909 


sax  LUisrro  bridge,  moxtf.rrev,  Mexico 

Same  as  above 

Showing  the  bridge  after  the  flood,  with  no  damage  to  bridge  and  with  slight  damage  to 
market  house  superstructure.  Holes  caused  by  two  telegraph  poles 
afterward  found  inside  the  superstructure 


Page  nine 


KENNEBEC  BRIDGE,  WATERVILLE,  MAINE 
Four  spans  of  85  to  135  feet  each 

For  the  Lewiston,  Augusta  & Waterville  Street  Railway,  Waterville,  Maine,  1910 


KENNEBEC  BRIDGE,  WATERVILLE,  MAINE 
Same  as  above 

Showing  location  adjacent  old  steel  bridge,  and  narrow  roadway  and  great  height  of  concrete 

bridge  60  feet  above  water 


Page  ten 


NASHUA  HUDSON  BRIDGE,  NASHUA,  NEW  HAMPSHIRE 
Five  spans  of  88  to  100  feet  each 

For  the  City  of  Nashua  and  Town  of  Hudson,  New  Hampshire,  1910 


NASHUA  HUDSON  BRIDGE,  NASHUA,  NEW  HAMPSHIRE 
Same  as  above,  nearing  completion 

Showing  details  of  cantilever  sidewalk  projecting  six  feet.  Construction  of  bridge  begun 
June  25,  completed  November  25,  1910 


Page  eleven 


HORLICK  PARK  BRIDGE,  RACINE,  WISCONSIN 
Span  of  waterway,  65  feet 

For  the  Board  of  Park  Commissioners  of  Racine,  Wisconsin,  1907 


SANTA  BARBARA  BRIDGE,  SANTA  BARBARA,  CALIFORNIA 
Span  of  waterway  44  feet,  skew  45  degrees 

For  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  Santa  Barbara  County,  Santa  Barbara,  California,  1908 

Page  twelve 


BROOKFIELD  BRIDGE,  BROOKFIELD,  INDIANA 
Span  of  waterway,  50  feet 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Shelby  County,  Shelbyville,  Indiana,  1908 


RIPLEY  BRIDGE,  RIPLEY,  NEW  YORK 
Span  of  waterway,  80  feet 
For  the  Town  Board  of  Ripley,  N.  Y.,  1908 


Page  thirteen 


PITTSBURGH  STREET  BRIDGE,  NEWCASTLE,  PENNSYLVANIA 
Twin  spans  of  75  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Lawrence  County,  Newcastle,  Pennsylvania,  1909 


Page  fourteen 


PITTSBURGH  STREET  BRIDGE,  NEWCASTLE,  PENNSYLVANIA 

Same  as  above 

Showing  clear  roadway,  approach  grades  and  concrete  lamp  posts 


FREDERICKSBURG  BRIDGE,  SALEM,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  80  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Washington  County,  Salem,  Indiana,  19,10 


FREDERICKSBURG  BRIDGE,  SALEM,  INDIANA 
Same  as  above 

Showing  behavior  of  arches  in  excessive  Hood.  No  damming  of  river,  no  obstruction  to  debris 


Page  fifteen 


WHITE  LICK  BRIDGE,  PLAINFIELD,  INDIANA 
Three  spans  of  45  to  55  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Hendricks  County,  Danville,  Indiana,  1910 


Page  sixteen 


WHITE  LICK  BRIDGE,  PLAINFIELD,  INDIANA 
Same  as  above 

Showing  middle  span,  extremely  light  piers  and  unequal  arches  balanced  by  distortion  of  arches 


MAIN  STREET  BRIDGE,  GREENVILLE,  SOUTH  CAROLINA 
Three  spans  of  85  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  Greenville,  South  Carolina,  ll)10 


MAIN  STREET  BRIDGE,  GREENVILLE,  SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Same  as  above 

Showing  details  of  railing  and  parapet 


Page  seventeen 


RED  BRIDGE,  HUNTINGTON,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  105  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Huntington  County,  Huntington,  Indiana,  1907 


HORLTCK  PARK  BRIDGE,  RACINE,  WISCONSIN 
Twin  spans  of  50  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Park  Commissioners,  Racine,  Wisconsin,  1907 

Page  eighteen 


KING  ARROYA  BRIDGE,  LA  JUNTA,  COLORADO 
Twin  spans  of  60  feet  each 

For  the  Beard  of  Commissioners  of  Otero  County,  La  Junta,  Colorado,  1910 


PEN  FIELD  BRIDGE,  BATTLE  CREEK,  MICHIGAN 
Twin  spans  of  30  feet  each 

For  the  Town  Board  of  Penfield  Township,  Battle  Creek,  Michigan,  1' '07 


Page  nineteen 


KEMP  BRIDGE,  WABASH,  INDIANA 
Span  of  waterway,  60  feet 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Wabash  County,  Wabash,  Indiana,  1906 


Page  twenty 


FAIR  GROUNDS  BRIDGE,  DES  MOINES,  IOWA 
Span  of  waterway,  12  feet 

For  the  Iowa  State  Fair  Association,  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  1910 


BLAIR  BRIDGE,  OVER  POTOMAC  RIVER,  MONTGOMERY  COUNTY,  MARYLAND 

Span  of  waterway,  55  feet 

For  the  Maryland  State  Roads  Commission,  Baltimore,  Maryland,  1910 


SIMPSON'S  CREEK  BRIDGE,  ORAL,  WEST  VIRGINIA 
Span  of  waterway,  40  feet 

For  the  County  Court  of  Harrison  County,  Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  1910 


Page  twenty-one 


YOUNG’S  CREEK  BRIDGE,  FRANKLIN,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  57  feet  6 inches  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Johnson  County,  Franklin,  Indiana,  1906 


Page  twenty-two 


YOUNG'S  CREEK  BRIDGE.  FRANKLIN,  INDIANA 
Same  as  above 

Showing  stone  arch  of  five  20-ft.  spans  in  background 


STONY  CREEK  BRIDGE,  BELLEFONTAINE,  OHIO 
Two  spans  of  60  and  20  feet  each 
For  the  Ohio  Electric  Railway  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  1907 


MARINE  CREEK  BRIDGE,  FORT  WORTH,  TEXAS 
Twin  spans  of  45  feet  each 

For  the  Forth  Worth  Stock  Yards  Company,  Fort  Worth,  Texas,  1910 

Page  tzvcnty-three 


Page  twenty-four 


Page  twenty- five 


MAUMEE  BRIDGE,  WATERVILLE,  OHIO 
Twelve  spans  of  75  to  90  feet  each 
For  the  Ohio  Electric  Railway  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  1907 


MAUMEE  BRIDGE,  WATERVILLE,  OHIO 
Same  as  above 

Showing  pier  details  and  roadbed 

Page  twenty- six 


MAUMEE  BRIDGE,  WATERVILLE,  OHIO 
See  opposite  page 

Bridge  carrying  work-train  with  100-ton  locomotive 


MAUMEE  BRIDGE,  WATERVILLE,  OHIO 
Same  as  above 

Showing  completed  bridge  under  electric  traction,  60-ton  car 


Page  twenty-seven 


WAYNE  STREET  BRIDGE,  PERU,  INDIANA 
Seven  spans  of  75  to  100  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Miami  County,  Peru,  Indiana,  1905 


Page  twenty-eight 


WAYNE  STREET  BRIDGE,  PERU,  INDIANA 
Same  as  above 

Showing  pier  details  and  long  spans  on  light  piers 


WAYNE  STREET  BRIDGE,  PERU,  INDIANA 
See  opposite  page 

Showing  great  area  of  waterway  possible  in  an  arch  bridge 


WAYNE  STREET  BRIDGE,  PERU,  INDIANA 
Same  as  above 

View  at  highest  flood  record,  within  three  feet  of  crown 


Page  twenty-nine 


PLAINFIELD  BRIDGE,  PLAINFIELD,  INDIANA 
Five  spans  of  35  to  42  feet  each 

For  the  Terre  Haute,  Indianapolis  &:  Eastern  Railway  Company,  Indianapolis,  1906 


Page  thirty 


PLAINFIELD  BRIDGE,  PLAINFIELD,  INDIANA 
Same  as  above 

Showing  pier  details  and  cambered  coping 


MINERS  FORD  BRIDGE,  TOLA,  KANSAS 
Three  spans  of  70  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Allen  County,  Iola,  Kansas,  1907 


SHELBURNE  FALLS  BRIDGE,  SHELBURNE  FALLS,  MASSACHUSETTS 
Five  spans  of  69  to  80  feet  each.  Skew  45  to  54  degrees 
For  Shelburne  Falls  & Colraine  Street  Railway,  Shelburne  Falls,  Massachusetts,  1908 


Page  thirty-one 


PIPE  CREEK  BRIDGE,  LOGANSPORT,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  70  feet  each.  Skew,  30  degrees 
Iror  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Cass  County,  Logansport,  Indiana,  1905 


Page  thirty-two 


PENDLETON  BRIDGE,  PENDLETON,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  75  feet  each 

Ear  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Madison  County,  Anderson,  Indiana,  1909 


PATRICK  FORD  BRIDGE,  CAYUGA,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  55  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Vermillion  County,  Newport,  Indiana,  1907 


HEDGES  BRIDGE,  CLINTON,  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  89  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Vermillion  County,  Newport,  Indiana,  1908 


Page  thirty-three 


SOUTH  BRIDGE.  COLUMBIAN  PARK.  LAFAYETTE.  INDIANA 
Span  of  waterway,  40  feet 

For  tlie  Board  of  Park  Commissioners,  Lafayette,  Indiana,  1902 


WEST  BRIDGE,  COLUMBIAN  PARK,  LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
Span  of  waterway,  30  feet 

For  the  Board  of  Park  Commissioners,  Lafayette,  Indiana,  1902 


Page  thirty-four 


NOW  LA  XI)  AVENUE  BRIDGE,  INDIANAPOLIS,  INDIANA 
Span  of  waterway,  30  feet 

For  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  Indianapolis,  Indiana,  1903 


Page  thirty- fire 


PLYMOUTH  ROCK  BRIDGE,  PLYMOUTH,  MASSACHUSETTS 
Span  of  waterway,  15  feet 
For  the  Town  of  Plymouth,  Massachusetts,  1907 


OCOYA  BRIDGE,  PONTIAC,  ILLINOIS 
Four  spans  of  60  feet  each 

For  the  Bloomington,  Pontiac  & Joliet  Electric  Railway,  Pontiac,  Illinois,  1909 


IOWA  RIVER  BRIDGE,  DECORAH,  IOWA 
Twin  spans  of  81  feet  each 

For  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  Winneshiek  County,  Decorah,  Iowa,  1906 

Page  thirty-six 


PUTNAM  BRIDGE.  PUTNAM,  CONNECTICUT 
Four  spans  of  60  feet  each 
For  the  Town  Board  of  Putnam,  Connecticut,  1911 


BANKER'S  FORD  BRIDGE,  SHELBY VILI.E.  INDIANA 
Twin  spans  of  57  feet  6 inches  each 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Shelby  County,  Shelbyville,  Indiana,  1905 


Page  thirty-seven 


2® 


EAST  WASHINGTON  STREET  BRIDGE,  INDIANAPOLIS,  INDIANA 
Span  of  waterway,  65  feet,  skew  20  degrees 
For  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  Indianapolis,  Indiana,  1904 


EAST  WASHINGTON  STREET  BRIDGE,  INDIANAPOLIS,  INDIANA 

Same  as  above 

Showing  details  of  railing,  spandrel  ends  and  camber  in  coping 


Page  thirty-eight 


\ 


SANTA  ROSA  BRIDGE,  SANTA  ROSA,  CALIFORNIA 
Span  of  waterway,  90  feet 
For  the  City  of  Santa  Rosa,  California,  1910 


WEST  UNION  BRIDGE,  WEST  UNION,  IOWA 
Span  of  waterway,  65  feet 

For  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  Fayette  County,  West  Union,  Iowa,  1909 


Page  thirty-nine 


RED  BRIDGE,  HUNTINGTON,  INDIANA 
Roadway  16  feet.  See  page  18 
Showing  permanent  character  of  roadway  and  parapets 


Page  forty 


HEMLOCK  STREET  BRIDGE,  HARRISBURG,  PENNSYLVANIA 
Roadway  60  feet  over  30-ft.  span 
Showing  permanent  character  of  roadway  and  railings 


COJN'IRY  CLUB  BRIDGE,  INDIANAPOLIS,  INDIANA 


Roadway  16  feet  over  30  ft.  span 
Showing  permanent  character  of  roadway  and  railings 


WHITELICK  BRIDGE,  PLAINFIELD,  INDIANA 
Roadway  24  feet.  See  page  16 
Showing  permanent  character  of  roadway  and  spindle  railing 


Page  forty-one 


CLIFTY  CREEK  BRIDGE,  ADAMS,  INDIANA 
Span  of  waterway,  80  feet 

For  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Decatur  County,  Greensburg,  Indiana,  1904 


Page  forty-two 


CLIFTY  CREEK  BRIDGE,  ADAMS,  INDIANA 
Same  as  above 

Showing  details  of  railing,  cambered  coping  and  low  wings  with  extended  spandrels 


SEVENTEENTH  STREET  BRIDGE,  BOULDER,  COLORADO 
Span  of  waterway,  70  feet 
For  the  City  of  Boulder,  Colorado,  1906 


SEVENTEENTH  STREET  BRIDGE,  BOULDER,  COLORADO 
Same  as  above 

Showing  details  of  roadway,  spandrel  ends  and  railings 


Page  forty-three 


ADVANTAGES  OF  REINFORCED 
CONCRETE  BRIDGES 


Concrete  bridges  are  permanent  improvements. 

Concrete  bridges  require  neither  painting  nor  repairs. 

Concrete  bridges  have  no  wooden  floors  that  are  periodically  out  of  repair. 

As  time  passes,  traffic  on  our  highways  grows  heavier;  steel  and  wooden 
bridges  grow  weaker;  concrete  bridges  grow  stronger.  To  build  a concrete 
bridge  then,  is  just  plain  common  sense. 

Concrete  bridges  are  flood-proof  and  frost-proof,  rust-proof  and  fire-proof. 
A concrete  bridge  once  built,  is  built  for  all  time. 

A concrete  bridge  is  the  only  bridge  that  grows  stronger  as  it  grows  older. 

Concrete  bridges  are  built  with  home  labor  and  materials.  The  money 
expended  for  a concrete  bridge  returns  directly  to  the  tax-payers. 

DO  PERMANENT  BRIDGES  PAY?  READ  THIS: 

A county  with  excellent  credit  and  no  indebtedness,  hut  using  all  its  income  for  current  expenses, 
desires  to  build  a small  highway  bridge  of  fifty-foot  span.  The  county  borrows  from  a bank  S1,000 
and  buys  a steel  bridge  with  wooden  floor.  At  intervals  of  five  years  the  bridge  is  refloored  at  a cost 
of  about  5100  for  each  renewal.  At  intervals  of  eight  years  the  bridge  is  repainted  at  a cost  of  S50 
for  each  painting. 

Now,  at  the  end  of  twenty-five  years,  in  spite  of  painting  and  floor  renewals,  the  steel  bridge  is 
worn  out  and  must  be  replaced  with  a new  structure.  The  interest  on  the  51,000  borrowed  at  the 
bank  has  amounted  to  500  each  year  on  a six  per  cent  basis  and  the  51,000  still  remains  unpaid. 

The  county  has  then  paid  for  the  first  twenty-five  years  the  following  amounts  : 


Interest  on  51,000  at  560  per  year 51,500 

Reflooring  every  five  years,  four  times 400 

Repainting  every  eight  years,  two  times 100 

52,000 


a total  of  52,000  which  amounts  to  580  per  year,  and  the  51,000  originally  borrowed  still  unpaid  and 
must  now  be  increased  to  52,000  or  do  without  a bridge. 

The  county  then  borrows  another  51,000  and  builds  a new  bridge  of  the  same  kind. 

For  the  next  twenty-rive  years  the  cost  per  year  runs  5140  because  of  the  interest  on  the  additional 
51,000,  and  the  county  is  in  debt  52,000.  At  the  end  of  fifty  years  the  county  will  be  paying  at  the 
rate  of  5200  per  year  and  be  in  debt  53,000.  At  the  end  of  seventy-five  years  the  county  will  be  pay- 
ing at  the  rate  of  5260  a year  and  be  in  debt  54,000.  And  at  the  end  of  one  hundred  years  it  will  be 
paying  at  the  rate  of  5320  a year  and  be  in  debt  55,000. 

It  takes  no  financier  to  see  that  the  building  of  temporary  steel  or  wooden  bridges  will  lead  to 
bankruptcy  or  to  higher  tax  rates. 

Suppose  instead  that  a permanent  concrete  bridge  had  been  erected  costing  nothing  for  repairs 
and  repainting,  but  costing  a third  more  than  the  steel  bridge  in  first  cost,  the  only  charge  to  the 
county  would  have  been  580  for  interest  and  an  indebtedness  of  51,333.33,  which  would  never  need 
be  increased  for  that  bridge. 

If  money  can  be  borrowed  at  a lower  rate  on  a bond  issue,  say  at  four  per  cent,  the  showing  is 
even  more  favorable  for  a concrete  bridge,  and  the  county  can  then  afford  to  pay  fifty  per  cent  more 
for  concrete. 

The  State  of  Kansas  has  passed  a law  that  no  steel  bridge  shall  be  built  when  a concrete  bridge 
can  be  secured  for  one-third  greater  cost. 


